"This could presumably lead to problems if a miraculous recovery of the donor happened..."
I'd say those would be religious problems. Who would want to believe in a god that would wait for a brain dead person to have her face torn off before miraculously bringing her back to life? What kind of sick bastard would do that? Well, the same guy who'd do these things.
If bioethicists say that there are ethical matters involved, we must accept it as fact!... and make our checks payable to their bank accounts in Milwaukee.
"I am a psychologist, I chair an ethics committtee..."
In other words, you are in charge of getting in the way of patients and doctors. You provide empty solutions to doctors afraid to make their own decisions, and you fill patients with a hollow feeling of hope that you can grasp such a situation entirely.
I took a Bioethics course my senior year, and I'll never forget one of the professor's stories. When he was a grad student, he worked for a ethics/bioethics advisor to President Clinton. Clinton's administration wanted some opinions on policy-changing matters, so they turned to his advisor. The advisor was busy with other material, however, and passed the task on to my professor. It was getting close to the deadline, and, ultimately, he wrote a hundred page paper in one weekend on the topic of bioethics and various rationale, a paper that would then go on to influence policy and decide people's lives.
The way he talked made it sound like he thought it up as he went along, and indeed that's what I got from the course: bioethics is about making the most appealing-sounding "rationale" with the hopes that the opposition will not make a more appealing-sounding counterargument, thus proving oneself as correct!
And thus I have proven that psychology is not science...:)
Obviously, the solution that everyone can agree on
on
First Face Transplant
·
· Score: 1
"Help control the pet population... have your pets spayed and neutered!"
Step 1: Throw out a bunch of random questions that may or may not have already been answered ad nauseum.
Step 2: Wait for reply.
Step 3: Don't bother to read the reply. After all, it's all bullshit anyways!
Step 4: Goto 1.
If you pay that much for a quack, and get no results, you'll be in denial too.
Re:While panspermia is possible...
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
People really need to read the parent's subject text.
Re:While panspermia is possible...
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
Read my reply to the other individual.
Re:While panspermia is possible...
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
"Panspermia originating all life is find"
Replace "find" with "fine" for great justice.
Re:While panspermia is possible...
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
Did you read my post? Panspermia originating all life is find, but panspermia bringing only humans is improbable, and fits no evidence. Rather, all evidence points without a doubt to humans descending from prior life that existed on Earth.
Re:While panspermia is possible...
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
"who believes this?"
It was argued previously on here that people could have come separately. I was just trying to clear things up before someone tried to make that argument again.
While panspermia is possible...
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
The belief that humans came from somewhere else to this planet, rather than descending from species already on this planet, is too improbable to be true. Species can evolve to physically appear like other species, such as an insect evolving to look like a leaf, but their genetic makeup will not evolve toward that of an entirely different species. The fact that chimpanzee DNA is so similar to humans is incontrovertible proof that the two species descended from a common ancestor.
(even though physical theories can never be proven, this is as close as one could get to a mathematical proof of 2+2=4, just as is the geologic record's organization of more primitive species at older timescales-- no matter how old people think the Earth and the life on it, you will never find the fossils of a modern species next to those of a very early species.)
"In modern translations the exact same source word can be translated to wildly different English words."
Such as, for an actual example, whether Mary was a "virgin", or just a "young woman". The first version sounds much more miraculous, so if I were wanting to inspire future generations, I'd go with that translation.
Here is the abstract of his original paper submitted to Physics Essays in 2003. This was copied from the full text PDF, so there may be some typos.
"Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all
who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the
departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between
QM and reality is more than just a "philosophical" issue. It reveals that QM is
not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal
inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as
physical as opposed to a purely mathematical "tool." Some of these issues are
discussed in a review by F. Laloë [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to
provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential
physics as Bohr of e- moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the
wave equation as modified by Schrödinger, a classical approach is explored that
yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the
atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion,
that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron
may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing
with the wave equation and quantum-mechanical problems. Specifically, a theory
of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully
applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated
Schrödinger boundary condition "Psi -> 0 as r -> infinity," which leads to a purely
mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation.
Using Maxwell's equations, the classical wave equation is solved with
the constraint that the bound (n = 1)-state electron cannot radiate energy. By further
application of Maxwell's equations to electromagnetic and gravitational
fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical
wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of
space-time in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural
relationship among Maxwell's equations, special relativity, and general relativity.
CQM holds over a scale of space-time of 85 orders of magnitude -- it correctly
predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos.
A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155
(2003)]."
Something with a kick, something that'll be in with the in crowd, something the marketing department can eat right up, something along the lines of "streaming audio".
Slashdot Mirror
"This could presumably lead to problems if a miraculous recovery of the donor happened..."
I'd say those would be religious problems. Who would want to believe in a god that would wait for a brain dead person to have her face torn off before miraculously bringing her back to life? What kind of sick bastard would do that? Well, the same guy who'd do these things.
If bioethicists say that there are ethical matters involved, we must accept it as fact!... and make our checks payable to their bank accounts in Milwaukee.
"I am a psychologist, I chair an ethics committtee..."
:)
In other words, you are in charge of getting in the way of patients and doctors. You provide empty solutions to doctors afraid to make their own decisions, and you fill patients with a hollow feeling of hope that you can grasp such a situation entirely.
I took a Bioethics course my senior year, and I'll never forget one of the professor's stories. When he was a grad student, he worked for a ethics/bioethics advisor to President Clinton. Clinton's administration wanted some opinions on policy-changing matters, so they turned to his advisor. The advisor was busy with other material, however, and passed the task on to my professor. It was getting close to the deadline, and, ultimately, he wrote a hundred page paper in one weekend on the topic of bioethics and various rationale, a paper that would then go on to influence policy and decide people's lives.
The way he talked made it sound like he thought it up as he went along, and indeed that's what I got from the course: bioethics is about making the most appealing-sounding "rationale" with the hopes that the opposition will not make a more appealing-sounding counterargument, thus proving oneself as correct!
And thus I have proven that psychology is not science...
"Help control the pet population... have your pets spayed and neutered!"
How do you propose that plants survive without the Sun? After all, the Sun was created after plants. Face it: it's bullshit.
Ahh, the good old "Wall of questions" defense.
Step 1: Throw out a bunch of random questions that may or may not have already been answered ad nauseum.
Step 2: Wait for reply.
Step 3: Don't bother to read the reply. After all, it's all bullshit anyways!
Step 4: Goto 1.
If you pay that much for a quack, and get no results, you'll be in denial too.
People really need to read the parent's subject text.
Read my reply to the other individual.
"Panspermia originating all life is find"
Replace "find" with "fine" for great justice.
Did you read my post? Panspermia originating all life is find, but panspermia bringing only humans is improbable, and fits no evidence. Rather, all evidence points without a doubt to humans descending from prior life that existed on Earth.
"who believes this?"
It was argued previously on here that people could have come separately. I was just trying to clear things up before someone tried to make that argument again.
The belief that humans came from somewhere else to this planet, rather than descending from species already on this planet, is too improbable to be true. Species can evolve to physically appear like other species, such as an insect evolving to look like a leaf, but their genetic makeup will not evolve toward that of an entirely different species. The fact that chimpanzee DNA is so similar to humans is incontrovertible proof that the two species descended from a common ancestor.
(even though physical theories can never be proven, this is as close as one could get to a mathematical proof of 2+2=4, just as is the geologic record's organization of more primitive species at older timescales-- no matter how old people think the Earth and the life on it, you will never find the fossils of a modern species next to those of a very early species.)
"I thought that people like Linné came up with the classification systems like 2000 years after he died."
You have evidence that Moses died? Outside of the Bible, nobody has ever found any evidence that he ever even lived, let alone died.
"In modern translations the exact same source word can be translated to wildly different English words."
Such as, for an actual example, whether Mary was a "virgin", or just a "young woman". The first version sounds much more miraculous, so if I were wanting to inspire future generations, I'd go with that translation.
You realize you've proved the parent's point about the current version of the Bible being "groomed" by the Church, right?
And, more importantly, what does he have against vowels?!?!
Come now, hot fusion used to always be 40 years away. Now, finally, it will always be 35 years away.
That is progress.
Here is the abstract of his original paper submitted to Physics Essays in 2003. This was copied from the full text PDF, so there may be some typos.
"Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a "philosophical" issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical "tool." Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloë [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e- moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrödinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantum-mechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrödinger boundary condition "Psi -> 0 as r -> infinity," which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell's equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)-state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell's equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of space-time in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell's equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of space-time of 85 orders of magnitude -- it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)]."
Actually the page never existed. An anonymous vandal created it with the text "it gonna rain!", and it was eventually deleted.
Did they follow the same methods that produced the genius of William James Sidis? (similar childhood, IQ estimated between 250 and 300)
I know there's a reason for preview button. Now if could only figure out.
Give a kid some food, and he'll be set for the day... Teach a kid to download porn, and he'll be set for life.
Something with a kick, something that'll be in with the in crowd, something the marketing department can eat right up, something along the lines of "streaming audio".
I will rip your fucking throat away.